Commander ll Tires

[Wayne O]

Anyone running Commander ll's on a Second Gen?

If so is the 130/90 16 working out up front?

Also how about out back 150/90 15 or how about

fitment with a 170/80 15 for clearance?

[stroker ace]

Anyone running Commander ll's on a Second Gen?

 

If so is the 130/90 16 working out up front?

 

Also how about out back 150/90 15 or how about

fitment with a 170/80 15 for clearance?

 

 

I'm sure others may chime in. I have the ll in the rear stock size and still have the regular commander on the front. I don't like the way my bike handles with the 130 on front. I don't think you can get the 170 on the rear will hit the drive shaft housing. I have seen were some have put a shim inside the drive spline area to move the wheel over for clearance but it's not something I'm going to do.

[Jactana]

I have a Commander II on the back with a Dunlop E3 on the front, didn't want a 130 on the front.Its seems to handle OK on the dry roads but felt a bit squirrelly in the wet. I'll probably go back to 2 E3's when I need new tires, the bike felt the best with those, Ron

[Mike G in SC]

Ditto on BOTH.

My RSTD has the CommanderII on rear and stock size original Commander on front.

My RSV has the Commander II on rear and stock size Dunlop E3 on front.

[colmike]

I've been running the Michelin Commander II's on both front and rear. I love them, and the improved handling of the smaller front tire has been fantastic..., my opinion. I was running stock sized Avon Venoms front and rear before changing out to the Michelins. The Venoms rear tire showed bad sidewall cracking and required replacement after only about 4K miles. That's what prompted my change to the Michelin's and I have been very pleased with their improved handling. Again, just my opinion. Nothing scientific other than my seeking normal road challenges, e.g. tar snakes, just to test their handling. My experience over the past 3K plus miles has been that the Michelins handle much better than the Avons, and vastly better then the original Bridgestones. I've also found that U-turns and parking lot maneuvers are much simpler with the narrower front tire, and I have not noticed any handling problems at speeds above 100 mph. Hope this info helps. YMMV. Good luck in your search.

[djh3]

I went from E 3's to the Michlien Commander II. Stock rear and the 130 front. My bike is also lowered 3/4" up front. Is it better handelig than before? Yes Is it the design of tire? Who knows, couldbe because its "new" But it is an improvment over the worn ones. lol Dont know as I can say I notice a big difference in low speed handeling but possibly. I can tell you it feels more positive in wet conditions. That is part of why I went with the Michilen vs Dunlap. I liked the tread pattern of the Michlien, as it appeard the every other or third grove crossed the center of tire to pass water. The Dunlaps the center part say and inch maybe had no groves to disapate water. They fell positive in corners also.. My Dunlaps were at the point the rear was getting "noisy" in corners. But I think thats just the way bike tires get. The DUnlap did show some tread cupping. I would have to look it up but I belive the michliens have a little higher capacity rating too.

[Guest scarylarry]

Cannot comment on the RSV but on the Kaw. Voyager I have the stock on the front and 180 on the rear..

 

I love them 10k miles on them and they handle great, I'm not getting that road whine noise from them...

 

One thing is ride easy on them at FIRST they do require or mine did extra scuffing time..

 

Found that out at a red light, now as far rain they hold well..

 

I wish they made the stocker for front on the RSV, I will not run a 130 on the front..

 

To me I put them up next to Avon's.

 

Hope this helps.